Saturday, October 31, 2015

It depends on what he's referencing. If he's talking about the Sweden of today that has radically reduced a) public spending as a percentage of GDP and b) the top tax rates, I could probably live with that. But if he's talking about the Sweden of the '70s and '80s in which government spending was for close to 70% of GDP and the top tax rate was 80-something percent (a policy that prompted many rich folks to simply leave the country - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!), then, no, that's unacceptable.......Knowing the fascistic Sanders, it's more than likely the latter.

This is one of the most flagrant examples of laziness and bias in all of academia. The fact of the matter is that the latter group of men, while surely not perfect, created hundreds of thousands of jobs and brought down the cost of living for pretty much every American AND they did it without government assistance (in the form of forced monopolies, subsidies, etc.). I mean, I understand that these court historians (folks such as Schlesinger and Kearns-Goodwin) truly and sincerely believe that all of America's heroes have been politicians (it's how they're wired) but you've got to be at least a little bit fair.

Yeah, the experts (AKA pessimists) didn't foresee a) the massive discovery of oil in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, etc., b) the need for gasoline as a power source of the future, and c) the incredible ingenuity, resourcefulness, and efficiency of entrepreneurs like Rockefeller who were ultimately able to out-compete the Russians....Talk about being way off, huh?

Well, if you buy into the progressive notion that taxes don't influence behavior, it wouldn't reduce income inequality one iota in that the numbers are almost always based on adjusted gross income, NOT NET INCOME. Hello!!!!!................................................................................................P.S. Of course, being that taxes DO influence behavior, the Sanders plan probably WOULD succeed, but at what cost? As the historical data has consistently shown, high top tax rates almost always lead to less revenue (just ask the Swedes, Hoover, etc. - http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2014/01/its-revenue-to-federal-government-stupid.html) and if you want to spend as much as this Sanders dude does, NOT GOOD.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Of the 12 to 15 million blacks that were imported from Africa to the New World (only about 4% of them ending up in English North America), not a single one came from Dutch South Africa. Yeah, that's right, folks, while those African kings, tribal-chiefs, and warlords were running down black people and selling them into slavery, the Afrikaners were busy doing other things like farming and not being the next genocidal victims of the Zulus. Just for the record here.

Hey dude, you do realize, don't you that a) the Status of Forces Agreement was signed by Bush, NOT Obama and b) the Maliki government (that we had clearly enabled) ultimately signed an agreement with Iran which stipulated that the U.S. HAD TO LEAVE, and so the only way that we could have left a "residual force" there would have been to impose it on a sovereign country. Capiche? And do you care?

I'm sorry but anyone with even a scintilla of gray-matter (a scarce resource in the White House and on Capitol Hill) knows that the exact opposite is true and that the data bears it out; the fact that climate related deaths have plummeted by over 95% during the past century, the fact that rich countries survive extreme weather events (which even the IPCC says HAVEN'T gotten worse or more prevalent as the result of CO2 increases) much better than developing countries do, etc. (not that those who are hard-wired into thinking that humans/human progress are evil and that life on the farm and dying at 40 were the cat's meow can ever be convinced, mind you). And it's just such damned common sense, for Christ.......

What people have to realize is that the Apartheid system (which actually started under British rule) wasn't born out of any sort of racial superiority mindset but out of fear; the fact the Boers were aware of what a) the Zulus had done to all of the other African tribes on their murderous track south in the 19th Century (the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands), b) the Haitians had done to the white inhabitants of that island after the French troops had left (a full-scale genocide), and c) the Communists (who for all intents and purposes were calling the shots by then) had done to the Ukrainians and their own people after the Bolshevik Revolution...........................................................................................And it isn't as if the blacks had gotten nothing in the deal. The Zulus and the Swazis both (through the Natives Land Act) had been given large areas of what was some of the most fertile land in the country and a boat-load of money, too. Yes, they eventually started flooding into the white areas because of the job growth, etc. but that was a win-win situation in that on practically every indicator possible (life-span, income, infant mortality, etc.) the well-being of blacks improved............................................................................................Look, I'm not saying that Apartheid was a perfect policy but I truly believe that if the West and the Commies had stayed the hell out of it a peaceful and far more effective resolution (a two-state solution, power-sharing, etc.) would have occurred and at the very least the place wouldn't be at Stage 6 of Genocide Watch's rankings, for Christ.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

In any other African country he would have been lined up against a wall and shot (or maybe decapitated) without a trail. The fact of the matter is that this fellow was given a break by the South African government in that they a) gave him a reasonable trial (even Amnesty International stated so at the time), b) spared his life, and c) even offered him an early release (the only stipulation being that he renounce violence - he balked and even then was only given house arrest). And what they fucking supposed to do, cave in to his terrorist demands and let the communists (which was about as far from an indigenous movement as possible) take over?

a) That Mellon wanted to reduce the tax burden on the affluent - Just the opposite is true in that according to the tax-records of the time (and synopsized by researchers such as Gwartney, Rader, Silver, etc.), the amount of taxes paid by families earning over $100,000 a year increased by 86% (from $194 million to $362 million) from 1921 to 1926.......b) That Mellon wanted to increase the tax burden on the poor - Again, the opposite is true in that according to those same records, the amount of taxes paid by families earning less than $10,000 a year was reduced by 79% (from $155 million to $33 million) during that same time period (he also reduced excise taxes, another tax that hammers the needy).......c) That Mellon wanted to completely do away with the estate tax - The truth is that he simply wished to reduce it and have the revenue go to the states.......d) That Mellon used the Board of Tax Appeals as a way to enrich himself - The truth is that Mellon had nothing to do with granting refunds AND (as Burton Folsom points out in "The Myth of the Robber Barons") this agency actually netted the Treasury MORE MONEY (nearly $2 billion more).....Those are just four..............................................................................................P.S. And, yes, Mellon eventually did lower the top rates from 73% to 24%. But he did this not because he was some rich Snidely Whiplash but because he was smart enough to know that rich people alter their behavior in response to high tax rates (seeking out shelters like tax-exempt bonds and trusts, investing less in taxable ventures, and just plain working less) and that the government would probably extract more out of them if they reduced the penalty on work, savings, and investment. And he was right.

They of course came up with a litany of bogus reasons for starting this war (the second Boer War) and gadzooks does that ever sound familiar, eh?.......................................................................................................P.S. And, yes, by war I'm referring to hundreds of thousands of British soldiers getting spanked by a bunch of farmers and only prevailing via a scorched-earth policy that rivaled that of the Cossacks during Napoleon's invasion of Russia and a concentration camp program that killed close to 30,000 women and children. In case there's any confusion.

It is without a doubt one of the most blatant political bait-and-switch episodes in modern history (the Roosevelt campaign even going as far as to say that Hoover was leading the country down the road to socialism).

As is often the case, it's a mixture. But if I had to lean one way or the other, it would clearly be toward the latter. The secret bombing of Cambodia (which was not just a violation of international law - Cambodia being a sovereign nation - but unconstitutional as well), his involvement in the assassination of a constitutional General in Chile, his supporting of dictatorships in Latin America, his "green-lighting" of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh, the selling of weapons to the Shah of Iran and the Saudi Royals - these are just some of the "highlights" and, while, yes, I understand that tough decisions sometimes have to be made, this "philosopher of the deed" (term courtesy of Greg Grandin) mentality that Kissinger fostered in which the U.S. always must act, a) hasn't served the country well and b) is polar opposite to what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

That we're all clones with identical abilities, aptitudes, etc., and that an equality of outcome between various groups could ever be secured (as Thomas Sowell has pointed out on numerous occasions, there has NEVER been a society in which the composite ethnic groups have achieved at the same rate and so, yes, an affirmative action program whose goal it is to achieve this is result is doomed to fail).

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

They were never, ever, intended to allow the President to make and/or alter a law. And, so, yes, the capricious actions that Presidents Bush (on defense appropriations, wiretaps, Medicare Part D, etc.) and Obama (on healthcare, immigration, Libya, etc.) have been engaging in over the past 15 years or so ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL (not that anybody seems to care at this point, mind you).

I'll take, "Exceptional Pieces of Film-Making that Also Serve as Propaganda Tools", for a thousand, Alex (the fact that it never mentions the British area-bombing of Germany, the fact that the British started the whole madness, the fact that Churchill had been itching for a war with Germany since 1936, the fact that the Poles had rejected numerous attempts at negotiation, the fact that there had been tens of thousands of Ethnic German refugees fleeing Danzig, etc.).

This is a common tactic of Presidents itching for a fight; provoking the other side to fire first. It's what Polk did when he paraded U.S. troops along the Rio Grand River (knowing fully well that nobody in Mexico considered that to be the border), what FDR did with his economic strangulation of Japan and his moving of troops and vessels closer and closer, what LBJ did with the first Gulf of Tonkin flash-point when he ordered the U.S destroyer Maddox into North Vietnamese waters as an aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuver and to act in synch with bellicose actions by the South (the second one being total fiction), what Bush senior did when he essentially waved Saddam Hussein into Kuwait to take the damned oil-fields, etc.. I mean, I understand that a few of these Presidents are revered in certain quarters and all but in order to avoid these mistakes in the future, we at least have to acknowledge them and whatever else we do stop the hero-worship.

I don't know about you folks but I'm old enough to remember when the Republican Party had a conservative wing, a liberal wing, a moderate wing, and a libertarian wing. And it wasn't just in the government, either; the fact that you could routinely go the National Review (for example) and see numerous debates on a whole host of issues (Rothbard versus Buckley on military spending, for instance), and it was SO vibrant. Today - if you aren't a socon or a neocon, there is no place you.......or me.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Hey, douche. You do realize, don't you, that a) the vast majority of banks in this country are small community banks (95-plus percent) and b) the restrictions that are being placed on them BY YOU are making it much more difficult for them to do their business (restricting their flexibility to make small business loans, etc.)?...And what in the hell were you thinking having two of the most corrupt whores in all of Washington pen you, for Christ? That alone was a huge faux pas.

I gotta go with this fellow; The American Spectator's presiding resident war-monger, Jeffrey Lord. I already made mention in a previous post of his claim that George Washington was an "interventionist" because during the Revolutionary War he twice invaded Canada (a preposterous claim in that a) Canada was a part of the British Empire - Great Britain being the country that we were trying to liberate ourselves from and b) our goal was never to occupy and/or conquer Canada). Well, guess what, folks, he's also trying to tell us that Jefferson and Madison were interventionists because of their actions against the Barbary Pirates and Britain (the War of 1812) respectively. I mean, does this guy just not know what interventionism means; that it doesn't pertain to defensive actions (the Barbary Pirates and the British Navy had both been engaging in provocative actions against America on the high seas; stealing our ships/cargo, impressing out sailors, etc. and it was only then that we retaliated)? It's either that or he's lying.

It's a ridiculous accusation. As anybody who's read even a modicum of history can tell you, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Nixon were all significantly worse than Obama on this issue (not to say that Obama has been good on it, mind you) and for a guy like Gingrich (who, need I remind you, claims to be a "historian") to make such an obviously partisan cheap-shot like this is pathetic.......There, I kinda defended Obama. Happy?

"There is a point at which in peace times high rates of income and profits taxes discourage energy and produce industrial stagnation with consequent unemployment and other evils."......Wow, if he had only thought of this earlier, it might have salvaged his Presidency...........................................................................................P.S. Alright, and so we now have Wilson and Keynes BOTH (not to mention, the Swedes) saying that high taxes are a drain on the economy, which only leaves droolers like Thom Hartmann and Robert Reich. Now THAT'S "progress" (pun intended).

Friday, October 16, 2015

Yes, the man was a dick in his personal life (disowning son, institutionalizing his wife, etc.) and, no, he didn't do any of these actions out of the goodness of his heart. But the fact of the matter here is clear - thousands of people benefited from this one action and again I ask you, name one thing that the government has done this well.

Name one thing that the government has done this well.................................................................................................P.S. And, no, don't say, winning two world wars, 'cause if it wasn't for the stupidity of two American leftist Presidents we wouldn't have had to fight those moronic wars to begin with.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

The Democratic party of Ed Koch, John F. Kennedy, John Glenn, Sam Nunn, Al Smith, Lee Hamilton, Bill Clinton, Dennis DeConcini, Lloyd Bentsen, Jimmy Carter, Birch Bayh, William Proxmire, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Chuck Robb, David Boren, and Bill Daley Sr. - What happened to it, folks? I mean, I understand that the Republicans have gone a little batty, too, but for those Democrats (save for Jim Webb) to have reduced themselves to that level of pandering was sad, nauseating, and disturbing. Flat out.

I shit you not (courtesy of the Dental Board)....And wait till you get a load of the most recent application of this. It appears that a couple kind-hearted dentists (orthodontists by trade; Dr. Ben Burris and Dr. Liz Gohl) in Arkansas are providing inexpensive (and in some cases, free) dental care to poor people but because they are orthodontists the Dental Board has been threatening to take away their licenses - THIS, despite the fact that they are fully trained and capable of doing these procedures. Yes, perhaps we do need SOME licensing for SOME occupations but how anybody could possibly be in favor of this regulation (which is nothing but crony capitalism), A REGULATION THAT IS HARMING POOR PEOPLE, is way, WAY, beyond me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1z3KplC IE..............................................................................................P.S. And, yes, the program has been suspended for now because the dentists (who currently employ over 100 people) are fearful of losing their practice. Just super, huh?

A lot of people don't realize it but the I.R.S. can confiscate your life-savings and they don't even have to charge you with a crime first. It's called civil forfeiture and, while its initial purpose was mostly to target drug-dealers, it has quite literally made criminals of small business owners whose only sin is the fact that they don't take credit cards and make small deposits in cash (restructuring, its called; the I.R.S. evidently seeing cash dealings as intrinsically suspicious)...................................................................................................Of course, the really scary thing in all of these scenarios is that a) the plaintiff (i.e. victim) is never innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and b) if it wasn't for groups like the Institute for Justice (a LIBERTARIAN outfit - the progressives sitting it out again) most of us wouldn't even know about this shit....The government as a powerful force for good? Yeah, right - a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B99os684On0 - b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGtFWC-12-w -c) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwN-uFCtXPs - d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOXZBu-otJ4

The level of dishonesty that these scoundrels (Michael Mann, James Hanson, etc.) have stooped to is so far beyond comprehension at this juncture that it even dwarfs their chutzpah.......AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE STILL EMPLOYED AND NOT IN JAIL. That's the truly amazing part and what an indictment on the scientific-government complex, eh?

Jim Webb (a War Hero and Person of Unquestioned Integrity Who's Accomplished Things in Both the Public AND Private Sector and Who's Done So in a Consistently Bipartisan Manner) being forced to share a debate-stage with four extremely mediocre and hackneyed-ladened surface-thinkers who couldn't come up with an original idea at gunpoint. That's how I saw it, folks.

Yet another prime example of crony capitalism and the government's incessant war on the small businesses of America (the government in this instance CREATING income inequality) - http://ij.org/case/saint-joseph-abbey-et-al-v-castille-et-al/ - P.S. Yes, this law was ultimately overturned but only because of the tireless work of the LIBERTARIAN Institute for Justice (the progressives, as usual, sitting it out).

Monday, October 12, 2015

Do these idiots simply not know history; the fact that whenever a country (even the seemingly powerful ones) attempts to insert itself into the middle of a civil war (France and the U.S.A. in Vietnam, the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan, the Israelis in Lebanon, etc.) BAD THINGS TEND TO HAPPEN?......That and wasn't it them who got us involved in Iraq in the first place......and so why in the hell should we listen to 'em at all?

These two fellows (all four of the parents having been born in Africa) have accomplished something that very few folks have. a) They both scored over 2,250 on the SATs and b) they both were accepted to all eight Ivy League institutions..............................................................................................And, yet, as phenomenal as these accomplishments are, we haven't heard much about them. Hm, could it simply be that it doesn't fit the progressive narrative that black people are discriminated against (never minding the fact that affirmative action has given many blacks an opportunity in college) and that, because of this, they cannot overcome?...................................................................................................P.S. I also find it instructive that both sets of parents came from Africa and that neither were wealthy (Ekeh's parents having worked at Target - TARGET!!); a strong argument that culture is a huge factor in accomplishment and that the government can truly fuck a family over.

So either these politicians (Clinton, Warren, Sanders, etc.) are total ignoramuses incapable of disaggregating the data or bald-faced liars. One or the other, folks - https://washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/do-women-really-earn-less-men-same-work

Saturday, October 10, 2015

You know what would really blow both sides (the Bible-thumping morons and the pompous-assed academics) out of the water is if this whole thing was just some fucking video game by a superior entity whose entire purpose was amusement, sadism, kicks, etc........I mean, can you even begin to imagine?

Yes, discrimination is always a possible explanation when examining inter-group differences within a society but as this example (as well as other ones; the Jews in Germany, the Armenians in Turkey, the Japanese in the U.S., the Italians in South America, etc.) clearly displays, it is hardly a de facto explanation. NOTE TO AMERICAN LEFTISTS (the fact that they want to blame all of the failures in the black community to the "legacy of slavery", "institutional racism", etc.).

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince.

This is a super get for the Orange in that Scott (a top 50 player from the talent-rich state of Louisiana) is a superior athlete who, if he doesn't pan out at quarterback, can probably play three or four different positions. He also seems to really like Syracuse and, who knows, it might even lead to more prospects from SEC country coming north and how fucking cool would that be?

Yes, he was a flawed man (the fact that he held slaves of course being his greatest sin) and a product of his era. But there is also a great deal to like about Tyler. a) The fact that he settled and reassured the country after the death of Harrison. b) The fact that he stood up to his own party (the Whigs) and opposed a lot of their more destructive policies; wasteful spending (also referred to as "internal improvements"), central banking, tariffs, etc.. c) The fact that he ended the second Seminole War and did so peacefully. And d) The fact that he, through the Webster-Ashburn Treaty, normalized relations with Britain and in so doing helped to end the slave trade, the border conflict between Maine and New Brunswick, etc. If I were to put him in my rankings, he'd probably be somewhere in the top half of the draw.

So much for the government being good stewards of the environment.......And just for the record, that is more waste than the top five chemical companies COMBINED -http://www.projectcensored.org/15-us-militarys-war-on-the-earth/

That's big problem, folks, a real big problem (the fact that Ben Carson, say what you want about his politics, is an acclaimed pediatric neurosurgeon and exactly the type of person that young black people SHOULD be emulating and not some twerking, talentless, offensive bimbo whose only claim to fame is being outrageous).

I'm guessing around 5% in that there are probably a few out there who despise humanity so much that they'd be willing to take the personal hit (the other 95% simply being rank hypocrites; solar panels on huts but nothing but the very best and most reliable for them and THEIR loved ones).

I'll take, "Profoundly Mediocre, Intolerant, and Anachronistic Books that No Sane, Sentient Person Would Ever in a Million Years Try and Glean Wisdom From", for a Thousand, Alex........................................................................................................P.S. And, yes, I'd essentially say the same thing about the New Testament and so you can stuff it with that Islamophobia bullshit.

They claim that it's because they're trying to reduce their reliance on nuclear energy (which ironically emits NO CO2), but I think that it has more to do with the fact that they've built so many wind and solar farms and that this form of energy can't reliably function without a fossil fuel back or even fossil fuel to run the damn suckers.......So, basically the same reason that China is building them, in other words.

I'd give it about 10%. a) The guy is 22-33 into his 5th year. b) Maryland has been blown out by a combined score of 73 to 3 over the past two games. And c) after looking at the remaining schedule, there's a decent chance that the Terps could end the year at 2-10 (the same record as Edsall's first season; 2011).......Of course, the fact that the guy's a dirt-bag who rubs people the wrong way (the way that he left UConn after the 2010 season - not even talking to the players first - was real low class) certainly hasn't helped, either.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

"Carbon-dioxide climate-induced famine could kill as many as a billion people over the next 35 years."............O.K. He's got 4 more years before we can completely dunk him but does anyone in his or her right mind really think that this is going to happen? The real truth of the matter is that climate-related deaths are actually down by over 95% since 1935 (this, despite the fact that the population has markedly grown) and that this has happened as CO2 levels have risen by more than 45%. I mean, I know that these doomsday scenarios are part of the DNA of these lunatics and all, but the fact that they've become so anti-progress when it is progress MORE THAN ANYTHING that has literally saved the lives of millions - maybe we need to start pushing back a little/calling them (the Michael Manns, the Al Gores, the Bill McKibbens, the John Holdrens, etc.) out on this bullshit (in this instance, SUVs and power-plants killing 1,000,000,000 people). You know that I'll be doing it.

They must figure that since we're willing to bankrupt our country with wasteful defense spending PROTECTING THEM, there really isn't a necessity for them to do likewise (which of course affords them the opportunity to bankrupt themselves on other items; green energy idiocy, the welfare state, bailouts, etc.).

The man was a genius. We learned this from history books. But what these same history books frequently leave out is the fact that Fulton was also a) a crony capitalist who received government handouts, b) granted a monopoly for Hudson River steam travel, and c) a fellow who eventually went bankrupt (Vanderbilt - who challenged that monopoly and won - kicked his ass up and down that river)....Hm, could it be that these leftist historians simply prefer losers (and especially if they're government darlings)?

He referred to us as, "the fastest horse in the glue-factory (a reference to the fact that, even though we now have a higher debt to GDP ration that countries like England and France, we still have the world's preferred currency, more wealth, a manageable deficit - FOR NOW, etc.)."

There is no evidence whatsoever for this. a) Jones's claim that the Africans came to America approximately 54,000 BC is fully refuted by the archaeological record which shows that the earliest human appearance came at somewhere between 12 and 16,000 years ago. b) His claim that the Native-Americans didn't cross the land-bridge from Asia until 3,000 BC is as ludicrous an absurdity that exists and no reputable archaeologist or geneticist has ever given it credence. c) All African Y DNA from the New World has to this day been completely consistent with post European contact (the earliest African-Americans having come with the Spaniards as slaves in the mid-16th Century) AND NOT PRIOR TO IT. d) Sails were unknown to Africa prior to the Portuguese landing there and no one has ever uncovered evidence of ancient cloth or textile production anywhere on the continent. And e) the claim by these hucksters that the Indians of Tierra del Fuego were actually Sub-Saharan Africans, simply because their DNA was slightly different from the other South American tribes, has repeatedly been debunked and no sane person believes it...........................................................................................................Look, I get it. History has largely been penned from the white European perspective. But to go from that to a philosophy that has as its core one ludicrous myth after another (one of the other biggies of course being the claim that the ancient Egyptians were black) isn't the right answer, either. I think that UC Davis's Clarence E. Walker probably stated it best when he said that, "Afrocentrism is a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic....Just because you want to believe that the world was created by black people doesn't make it so."